# C_2013129EN.01002401.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/24

---

Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council

(Case T-121/13)

2013/C 129/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oil Pension Fund Investment Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and also Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 as regards inclusion in Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as those legal acts concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and also Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 as regards inclusion in Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as those legal acts concern the applicant;

| — | adopt a measure of organisation of procedure pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, requiring the defendant to produce all documents relating to the contested decision, in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt a measure of organisation of procedure pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, requiring the defendant to produce all documents relating to the contested decision, in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection
  In this context it is claimed, inter alia, that the statement of reasons in the contested acts is incomprehensible to the applicant, and comprehensible reasons were not communicated separately to the applicant by the defendant. As a result the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective legal protection have been breached. There has also been a breach of the principle of the right to be heard. The applicant claims that the contested acts were not served on it by the defendant and that there was no hearing of the applicant. Further, it is submitted that the defendant did not correctly assess the circumstances relating to the applicant. The applicant takes the view that it was deprived of a fair trial based on the rule of law, having been unable, in the absence of adequate knowledge, to comment specifically on the relevant allegations and alleged evidence of the Council, or to put forward any contrary evidence in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection

In this context it is claimed, inter alia, that the statement of reasons in the contested acts is incomprehensible to the applicant, and comprehensible reasons were not communicated separately to the applicant by the defendant. As a result the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective legal protection have been breached. There has also been a breach of the principle of the right to be heard. The applicant claims that the contested acts were not served on it by the defendant and that there was no hearing of the applicant. Further, it is submitted that the defendant did not correctly assess the circumstances relating to the applicant. The applicant takes the view that it was deprived of a fair trial based on the rule of law, having been unable, in the absence of adequate knowledge, to comment specifically on the relevant allegations and alleged evidence of the Council, or to put forward any contrary evidence in the proceedings.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality
  In the applicant’s view the Council made a manifest error of assessment when it adopted the contested acts. The Council failed adequately and/or correctly to investigate the facts underlying the contested acts. In that context, it is submitted, inter alia, that, so far as concerns the applicant, the grounds for adoption of the restrictive measures that are stated in the contested acts are inapplicable. The contested acts also breach the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality

In the applicant’s view the Council made a manifest error of assessment when it adopted the contested acts. The Council failed adequately and/or correctly to investigate the facts underlying the contested acts. In that context, it is submitted, inter alia, that, so far as concerns the applicant, the grounds for adoption of the restrictive measures that are stated in the contested acts are inapplicable. The contested acts also breach the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
  Here, the applicant claims that its fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389) (‘the Charter’) have been infringed by the contested acts. It invokes, in that regard, breach of the freedom to conduct a business in the European Union (Article 16 of the Charter) and of the right to use its lawfully acquired possessions in the European Union and, in particular, to dispose of them freely (Article 17 of the Charter). Furthermore, the applicant claims breach of the principle of equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) and of the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Here, the applicant claims that its fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389) (‘the Charter’) have been infringed by the contested acts. It invokes, in that regard, breach of the freedom to conduct a business in the European Union (Article 16 of the Charter) and of the right to use its lawfully acquired possessions in the European Union and, in particular, to dispose of them freely (Article 17 of the Charter). Furthermore, the applicant claims breach of the principle of equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) and of the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter).

---